This book is simply great fun to read aloud; you'll find yourself wanting to memorize its evocative imagery and epic aspirations:

"Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt; Five thousand tongue applauded when he wiped them on his shirt. Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip, Defiance flashed in Casey's eye, a sneer curled Casey's lip."

You and your youngsters will love the humor and the drama in this a classic rendition of Thayer's beloved poem. Infants and toddlers will enjoy the bright pictures, and all readers will appreciate the perfect teaming of Thayer and Polacco.

However, if it is not translated in verse, then it is no longer has the quality of the original poetry. So what shall we do here?

I think that Fitzgerald has done an excellent job in translating Khayyum. It is said that good poetry has a balance of two things - beautiful language and meaning. Ftizgerald has achieved this.

If you are looking for a more "literal" translation, to get exactly what Khayyum said and thought, then you are better to look to a word for word, unrhyming translation, that has taken care to keep the authentic quatrains only - not all the ones ascribed to him. The "Persian Heritage Series" has produced a good translation like this.

Also beware of "commentaries" telling you that Omar Khayyum was a sufi, mystic, or whatever... and that his verses have special meanings outside of the literal interpretation. It is true that poets in Persia used such imagery as "may" (wine), "maykhana" (tavern), "saqi" (cup-bearer), "yar-e nazanin" (lovely maiden) etc. etc. to bring across meanings of God, and heaven, though this doesn't mean that these things are always implied.

One of the qualities of poetry is that it is ambiguous. It must be recognised that people like Omar Khayyum and Hafez were living in times of religious persecution. If you said something against the established sect, then you could be accused of "kufr" (blasphemy) and punished accordingly. Khayyum himself was accused of kufr, as was Hafez in his time through a line of poetry he had written. Hafez protected himself through the ingenious adding of another line of poetry, clearing his name. Khayyum protected himself because he was a guest at the royal court.

:)

As a result, many scholars have determined to read the
Persian original, since translations are always
unsatisfactory shadows of the glorious original (or so
we are usually told). However, while the quest for
the original quatrains by Khayyam makes an intriguing
journey, at the end one is forced to admit that the
FitzGerald poems far outshine the Persian originals!

Borges wondered whether this might not be the case, but
was unable to consult the original Farsi. I have done
that (looked at the original) and can bring back the
following report:

1. Iranians in general are puzzled by the success of the
FitzGerald poem. For them, Khayyam has always been
renowned as a mathematician, philosopher, and man of
science; he wrote quatrains indeed, but is very definitely
not in the poetic league of Hafez, Sa'adi, and Rumi.

2. The standard texts of Khayyam have been stuffed with
imitations and forgeries over the centuries, so that
separating the real Khayyam from the spurious can get to
be a mare's nest.

3. FitzGerald definitely took themes, images, and moods
from Khayyam. Everyone who has ever looked into the matter
instantly realizes that his translation are very loose.

And therefore, we are left to conclude that FitzGerald
composed something analogous to a "Rhapsody and Variations
on Themes of Omar Khayyam."

To illustrate, consider a point made by Borges in his
lectures ("This Craft of Verse"):

Dreaming when Dawn's Left Hand was in the Sky
I heard a Voice within the Tavern cry,
"Awake, my little ones, and fill the Cup
Before Life's liquor in its Cup be dry."

The single word which turns the first line into something
magical and poetic is the word "left." It is very hard
to explain logically why this should be so (Borges has
a try at it) -- but in any case, that word "left" is not
in the original. What you will find in the original
are taverns, wine, cups, and cups being filled, along with
the "carpe diem" theme which has been around forever.

But the beauty and the magic of the FitzGerald "Rubaiyat"
came from FitzGerald. The most impressive poetry is the
English "transation," not the Persian "original."

Now there's a hat-trick for you!!

The book is an actual copy (i.e. transcript) of taped conversations that occurred in the Whitehouse during the Cuban Missile crisis. The book was so fascinating for the sole fact that it presents (true to life) all the details which were actually being spoken of, on, about, etc. The reader can actually sense the emotion, tension, anguish, and despair that comes out in some of these conversations. In fact, the intensity in this book puts the movie to shame (which is usually the case with most good books).

This book consists of conversation's of the National Security Council, President Kennedy,Robert Kennedy, and the President's advisors. The book is very revealing and honest (since it is true to life) and it paints a very vulnerable picture of just how easy things could fall apart in this 'invincible' place we call home. Fortunately, we as readers today actually know the outcome is positive. However, the terror comes through the pages when, as I read, the realization that these men have no idea what is going to happen as this whole situation unfolds. That was one of the riveting things about this book.

Overall, this is a great book for those who are interested in American history, or Presidential history, etc. I recommend it, especially since it is so fascinating and also because it is an actual account word for word accurate. That makes for great objective history.

Fitzgerald appealed to me in high school, when I was pretty much a romantic teen-ager who fancied the tragic story of Daisy and the Great Gatsby.

Hemingway was my favorite author when I was in grad school. His writing is clean, precise and open to interpretation, unlike that of other writers of his time who told you every single thing about a character's motivation.

While I've read a lot about Hemingway's life, I never realized the two men were so close during Hemingway's rise and Fitzgerald's fall in the literary world. By following their relationship through their many letters, Scott Donaldson sheds light on two distinctly different literary careers. Fitzgerald was pretty much the voice of the jazz age, while Hemingway took up the torch for the lost generation. Each had his foibles, to be sure, but it seems Hemingway was the more disciplined of the two and, as such, enjoyed a longer career.

I enjoyed the book and am happy to add it to my collection of Hemingway resources.

Enjoy!

Then they both die... and the book continues for another 100+ pages. It's as if the author realized his book was only 250 pages long and had to fill out the binding with unnecessary rehash. Obviously drinking played an important part in both writers' lives, and it was chronicled in their relationship. There's no need to devote 40 more pages to discussing their drinking further (actually, repeating the discussion would be more appropriate here)!

Ultimately, the first part is good if not amazing. It certainly isn't good enough to make up for the terribly dull ending. To be honest, I wish I'd have read a biography of each instead. Perhaps you should do the same. Even better, read their actual works!

P.S. I'm not exactly dissuading you from this book. It is well written and interesting. Just be prepared for some boring parts and an empty stomach at the end.